On 9/27/2012 10:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I think the only difference in what you are saying and what I am
saying, is I say look the zombies can do these things (by their
definition), so they must be conscious and there is the inconsistency,
whereas you say zombies cannot do these things since they are
not conscious (by their definition), so then zombie behavior cannot be
indistinguishable to a third party.
It works out to the same conclusion, either zombies are conscious, or
zombies can't behave indistinguishably, and hence the definition of a
zombie that is non-conscious but has identical behavior is flawed.
Hi Jason,
I am fine with identity of the two if and only if there is no
distinguishable difference in behavior, as this gives us a 3p
definition, but to only see that case as the whole of the gamut of
possibilities is a mistake. My claim is that the zombie idea can cause
as much confusion as it's proponents intended to solve. Ideas are two
edged things.... Otherwise they are just meaningless noise.
--
Onward!
Stephen
http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
